Zenst

As for the main article, it makes a causal leap. The fact that these patients were hospitalised after intensive AI use establishes an association; it does not establish that AI caused their psychosis. There is some evidence that chatbot interactions may have reinforced or intensified delusional thinking, but no counterfactual evidence showing what would have happened without AI. By the same reasoning, contact with psychiatrists is strongly associated with receiving a psychosis diagnosis and being admitted to hospital; but that does not mean psychiatrists caused the underlying psychosis. The relevant question is whether AI merely featured in an episode already under way, helped trigger it, or materially worsened it. The evidence cited does not yet distinguish between those possibilities.

Maybe AI models may become reduced to a collection of tiles you add to a chips one day, maybe sooner for some areas as you say, motor control for balance, vision systems, speach recognition systems etc, broken down, for robotoics, much is already there and just cost of battery/power holding much back.

I do wonder how an ambitious AI would handle the maths. COBOL is renowed for its fixed no rounding maths, utterly rigid and defined in the code, Java on the other hand is not (e.g., 0.1 + 0.2 becomes 0.30000000000000004), unless they are extensivly using BigDecimal, then its already a broken migration.

I've seen projects proclaim in the past to migrate COBOL systems to Java, and fail expicly when the solution was a dtaawarehouse system and a seperate Java system using the legacy backend to do all the fancy marketing reports or whatever other department was pushing for changes they wanted without a grasp of what it truly entailed and blinded by some sales pitch.

It's not just the code that needs migrating, its the data as well, then you want solid robust infrastrucure, which is why IBM still sell those mainframes to run all that well battle tested COBOL code.

Is it impossible to migrate to Java or any othger language - no, anything can be done, but the level of devil in the details and not just software, the data and a robust system to run it upon. It is very easy for even the best to overlook a gotcha.

We have all used an AI where it has gone down one path and you then point out something and it corrects itself, without the knowledge and a load of old grey beads(or a team) to act as devil advocate and try to pull the output apart, YOU can end up with something that works for everyones satisfaction, but is hiding a few gotchas down the line. AI coding needs a full debate team with one puishing it and one countering it almost I'd say.

If it works, why change it is always a good approach and why we mostly have in certain systems a COBOL backend with APIs or datawarehousing to expose for fancy java or other language added value/functionality.

I can only image generations of directors pushing cutting edge to replace legacy systems, and learning that cutting edge can cut you. My sympathy for the IT departments who have to deal with that as it has always been a bain of IT departments who are then forced to justify why it's fooling in a constructive way and explain it to non IT people in upper managment why the case.

As for migrating COBOL to anything, I'd not do it myself, id suggest a rewrite/redesign of a new system from scratch and then run both in parallel for a long time and make sure they actually do the same job and results. Even hand migrating back in the day, would produce a lot of messy code that refactoring would make sence and yet, not what the client would pay for as that would be a rewrite.

I read they had their own fab, so the minimum production run aspect would appear moot.

Another way would be to auction of X amount of units, then those with cash can pay through the nose directly and again, the company gains and by that, so do normal consumers on a breadline, as it would help reduce the cost quicker down the line for the rest of the purchasers.

I'm always supprised that companies don't do a tiered price release, offer it at 200% price, you get it, 150%, you lower down the list and then 100% lottery time, that way they gain from those who can afford to pay more(maybe able to subsidise other sales later and price cuts down the line). Why feed scalpers when you can coin it directly and then offer a lower price to those who are prepared to wait a few more months or so.

However, if they can tweak the drug and make it something that escapes the patent and still works then good for them and everyone else. Though mindful large pharma is rather tight and lawyer-heavy when it comes to protecting their IP.

As of now it is under patent that expires in 2032, and also not FDA approved, so with how long that process takes, either way, wont see it available anytime soon in drug regulated countries. But grey imports/black market trade in pharma drugs is not to be overlooked.

Reminds me of the underpant gnomes in many ways

Collect underpants ???AI??? Profit

I later worked at the Department of Health during the Blair-era restructuring, when management layers multiplied, Trust structures became increasingly fragmented, and PFI debt created long-term financial drag. I also encountered someone trying to sell internal documents, which says plenty about the governance culture at the time.

Then I saw the BBC go through outsourcing to Fujitsu, with assets sold off and then effectively contracted back.

Across utilities, government, healthcare and broadcasting, the pattern has been depressingly consistent: short-term accounting savings, long-term operational debt, and layers of complexity presented as reform. Problems are rarely solved. They are moved around, rebranded, outsourced, and made to look resolved until the next team inherits the consequences.

Capgemini, Fujitsu and the usual suspects do well out of it. The public sector gets another five-year spreadsheet win, while the real-world cost lands years later with someone else.

All rather depressing when you see it first hand and many stories I dare not tell, from Ministers and their `shadows`(what their assistants called), upper goverment stories and even from infosec days involving banks and financial intertutions and how links that should never be there were found. Networks connected by undocumented lines and other things that just make you go WTF at levels of disbelief, even No.10 dealings that again, best left unspoken.

Just a system that focuses on being seen to care, over actually careing and if you do care, you are either broken or scared for life.

Oh well, be another decade or two to unpick the debt bombing this time around and those that cause it, never held to account as seagull managment is now the norm in many walks of life along with doing little waiting for pensions with pension surfing. This that care, die, those who don't get promoted on lies.

I will write a book to be published when i'm gone(soon) and just not care then, until then, I care, just wished those with power actually did.

Though probably not the best title as more about "Mount Stupid", than Dunning-Kruger.

Fun times, but then, never a dull moment in this industry.

UK been a mess enegy wise for a while as we rushed towards netzero when we should of been more tortise, that saw the UK see where we were and where we wanted to be and go in a straight line like a roman road,but no concept of bridges or tunnels, that made the direction more bumpy than it could have been and far less impacting overall. There again, good example would be the mad rush done when they rushed to replace incadecent bulbs under Regulation EC 244/2009 with CFC bulbs chucked endless money to pat themselves on the back with LED taking over a few years later, sending those rushed replacement to landfill - which of note, if you broke one, you literly have to evac your house and air for a while due to the mecury in them. As I said, many good intentions are rushed like a hare when we all know the tortise wins the race.

"In 2024, Bluesky submitted 1,154 reports for confirmed CSAM to the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Reports consist of the account details, along with manually reviewed media by one of our specialized child safety moderators. Each report can involve many pieces of media, though most reports involve under five pieces of media."

If it wasn't there, there would be no reports.

Here is the timeline of Huawei's ban and restrictions in the EU and UK:

Phase 1: Initial Restrictions and Voluntary Guidelines (2019–2020) May 2019: The United States places Huawei on a trade blacklist, restricting access to key technologies (Google Android, US chips), which triggers security reviews across Europe.

January 2020: The European Commission launches its "5G Security Toolbox," encouraging EU member states to restrict or exclude "high-risk vendors" (HRV) like Huawei from critical core network infrastructure.

July 2020 (UK): The UK government announces a total ban on buying new Huawei 5G equipment after December 31, 2020, and orders the removal of all existing Huawei 5G gear by 2027.

October 2020 (Sweden): Sweden bans Huawei and ZTE from 5G networks and orders the removal of existing equipment by January 2025.

Phase 2: Implementation Hurdles (2021–2023) 2021-2022: Many EU nations slow-walk the implementation of the 5G toolbox, with only a small number of countries actively banning Huawei from core networks due to costs and dependence on its technology.

June 2023: EU officials express frustration that only one-third of EU countries have implemented restrictions on high-risk vendors.

Phase 3: Hardening Stance and National Bans (2024–2025) July 2024 (Germany): After years of delays, Germany announces an agreement with major operators to remove Huawei and ZTE critical components from 5G core networks by the end of 2026, and from access/transport networks by 2029.

August 2025 (Spain): Spain cancels a government contract with Telefonica involving Huawei equipment. November 2025 (EU-wide): The European Commission pushes for a binding, mandatory ban, threatening to make the 2020 voluntary guidelines legally required for all member states.

Phase 4: Proposed Mandatory EU-Wide Ban (2026) January 20, 2026: The European Commission unveils a new proposal aimed at forcing EU member states to remove Huawei and ZTE from their networks within three years of adoption.

January 2026: Reports indicate the EU may move to ban Huawei and ZTE from critical infrastructure, including fixed-line and fiber networks, not just 5G. Summary of Key Country Timelines

UK: New equipment banned (Dec 2020), full removal by 2027. Sweden: Full 5G ban, removal by Jan 2025. Germany: Core removal by end of 2026, RAN removal by 2029. EU (General): Proposed 3-year mandatory phase-out starting from 2026

Must say, tech that has held up for all that time, must be doing something right.

So this cloud ride, the possibility of a whole new paradigm in computing could happen before we see EU cloud centricity.

So such reports, in such situations, will be interesting if it has an impact on Tesla shares. Which could trigger an investigation.

You can see why bug bounties get rewarded well. Though mindful, money is not what drives everyone. Then there are the greedy, in which such exploits value on the black market can be higher. Not forgetting government agencies level.

I wonder which email client will break the 1GB mark, and when we will see a resurgence in reducing bloat. I'm sure that phase will come, did for Microsoft once.